date: Mon Feb 28 08:58:57 2005 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: CCSP report review period to: Ben Santer Ben, Good to see you if briefly last Wednesday ! The rest of the meeting was rather odd. Some very odd things said by a few people - clearly irked by not having got a couple of proposals recently ! I'm not supposed to be contacting you ! I would urge you to write up what you presented on the day and in the report. It was the most convincing presentation and chapter of the report. You should have less to do than the other chapters. Not yet sure how the summary will fare. We didn't discuss the email evidence (as you put it) nor Pielke's dissent. We shouldn't and we won't if the NRC people have their way. I was never really sure what the point of the review was. Cheers Phil At 20:59 24/02/2005, you wrote: Dear Dian, Thanks very much for your email. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments you expressed. Over the next few months, my time and effort will be directed towards writing up some of the analyses that we've performed in the course of our work on Chapter 5. I believe this is how I can be of most benefit to the CCSP report. At yesterday's meeting in Chicago, it was disappointing to see that our group's email correspondence can be submitted as evidence to the NRC panel. This has rather diminished my enthusiasm for further rounds of email exchanges amongst CCSP Lead Authors. With best regards, Ben Dian Seidel wrote: Dear Group, One thing I like about our line of work is the path we take in our research. Focusing on the publication part of the path, I always get a sense of satisfaction, and breathe a little sigh of relief, when I send a manuscript off for journal review. Although the outcome is uncertain, I like knowing that the paper is out of my hands for a period of time, and that I can turn my attention to other matters until I hear back from the editor. After the review period, I'm able to return to the work refreshed, and with a bit more objectivity, because I've put it aside for a while. I'd like to suggest that we try to take advantage of the time the NRC panel is reviewing of our report to detach ourselves from it, so that when we have to address their comments and revise the report, we might have a clearer perspective on our work. These are just my own thoughts, and Tom as our Editor and the CLAs might have different ideas on how to keep us busy. But I hope not! :-) Dian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas R Karl" Date: Thursday, February 24, 2005 3:16 pm Subject: Re: science issue Roger, We should freely communicate among the team as needed. Thanks, Tom Roger Pielke wrote: Tom What is your policy with respect to internal CCSP exchanges? (i.e. my comments/questions to Ben). Are we to consider the CCSP report process>closed until we receive the NRC review? (of course, it is up to Ben as to whether he replies even if you are permitting CCSP exchanges). Roger -- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin D. Santer Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103 Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A. Tel: (925) 422-2486 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------